Whoa. 4e is hard on PC mortality rates.

[Wisdom Penalty]

Interesting. "Retreat" is not a word, I believe, in my group's pre-4e vocabulary.

Would be sorta nice to see an article on how to handle retreats without getting bogged down in an ever-scrolling battle mat. I suppose you could use the "reference point" the DMG suggests when discussing aerial combat (i.e., the reference point is the ship the PCs are on and everything is move relative to that).

I haven't run an adventure, mind you - only a series of playtests where I just upped the EL each successive combat. Don't get me wrong - I dig tough combats; it's just me trying to find the sweet spot for my group that's taking some time.

Sweet spot - as I'm defining it - is a challenging encounter that does not preclude additional encounters that same adventuring day. If the PCs can win, but blow all their resources, then we've sorta gone against the 4e design paradigm of "no more 15 minute adventuring days", right? As a DM, we should want to see the players be compelled to ration their resources - action points, daily powers, surges, etc.

Things I really like from 4e combats:

1) The fluidity of a dynamic battlefield - front ranks moving about, front rank changing to rear rank in a heartbeat, etc.

2) The monster roles vis-a-vis PC roles. Awesome to see PC artillery going against enemy artillery whilst melee guys beat on one another in between.

3) The definitive encouragement of terrain/zones.

Another thing that's neat is that PCs do drop quite a bit, but healing powers within the game allow their comrades to bring them back to the fight. I like forcing tough decisions on players, and it's generally a tough decision to decide between healing Bob or trying one last smack against Bob's enemy.

Unless Bob is an ass, in which case it's an easy decision.

Wis

 

[Mouseferatu]

Interesting. "Retreat" is not a word, I believe, in my group's pre-4e vocabulary.

They'd better learn.

Would be sorta nice to see an article on how to handle retreats without getting bogged down in an ever-scrolling battle mat.

Well, the DMG includes a skill challenge for modeling pursuits; you might be able to adapt that.

 

[Family]

Blue jello is very good at exploding...but it can't give chase too well.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well, the DMG includes a skill challenge for modeling pursuits; you might be able to adapt that.

That is what I am doing, there will be a initial skill check/power or ability use to "disengage", then the battlemat is taken away and it goes to a skill challenge mode.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Well, the DMG includes a skill challenge for modeling pursuits; you might be able to adapt that.

And that, Sir Mouse, is why you get paid the big bucks. Very good idea. Taken a cue from Seraph's post, I think I may design a generic "run away!" skill challenge, easily (?) adaptable to various situations wherein our brave heroes are universally happy they're faster than the dwarf.

Wis

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Its going to be fun in my games, since the world is one where fairly advance firearms exist (turn of 19th century (but looks wise somewhat futuristic)).

So as such, for a -2 on their Skill Check while in the Skill Challenge they can use a Basic Ranged Attack to try and hit the thing that is chasing them (or their chasing if reversed).

I may cause a hit to deal not just damage but its own -2 to their next Skill Check, and will cause a Slowed Effect upon leaving the Skill Challenge.

Edit: The rules for this skill challenge are somewhat different then normal Chase-rules, since in this one both chaser and chasie perform the Skill Challenge, not just the chaser.

You still win, if you reach the success before failing, but you could also lose if they reach their success before you do. You could also win if they fail (them tripping over a rock for instance).

 

[Kichwas]

Just a long-winded theory, but...

RPG players -usually- are very bad at teamwork. Too many iconoclastic personalities.

I suspect that 4E 'by the numbers' is a lot easier, if 'played right' - as in, played the way they assumed it would be played. Which is a style table top RPGers are, again usually, not used to.

As long as we have so much MMO talk these days, look at how MMOs work. In the low levels you have hordes of players eternally locked in a certain range of content because they just cannot ever manage to learn how to play as team players. Well, they do make it to max level, as many raiding players in just about any MMO can attest, there are stacks of unskilled players beating on the doors of guilds that can handle content demanding to be let in. But they never get far in the 'endgame' - the group content, like raids in WoW (dungeons built for 5, 10, 15, or even as many as 40 person teams).

Most of them can do the 'click play' pretty well and pretty fast. Many of them can even 'play' their chosen character -better- than the raiders. What they lack is something they are often not even aware exists on a level outside of their understanding - teamwork. Mastering teamwork in an MMO is really all that really divides the top raiders from the people who never seem to get anywhere.

Now to bring this analogy back to table top RPG play...

Table top players are long used to being a group of 4 to 8 action hero movie stars. Everyone can shine, everyone acts like they are lead in the film, they are Dirty Harry, or Columbo, or Harry Potter. Sit around most gaming tables and you'll see players vying for the spotlight.

Iconoclasts are what they are in part because they fail to comprehend the value of not being what they are...

4E however, is built with a lot of those MMO paradigms of roles in mind. If you don't play to your role, and that is not about what you yourself do, but what you do to enable and sync with the team, then it gets all that much more difficult to master.

Get a pack of team players in there with 4E, and they could probably master it faster than they could 3E. Team players know that there is really only one character present at the table - the team. Its a character with 5 heads, but it is still only a single character. It only gets one action per round if it behaves properly - the team action.

Varied opinions about 4E aside, the roles in it are very much designed to facilitate over-enabling certain teamwork concepts. Concepts which, first, require setting aside individualism and individual egos. While the role concept and the tricks used to enforce it (things like marking) are very unrealistic, they do in turn reinforce something very real. In actual conflict, teamwork is the only way to go. Iconoclastic behavior, especially the 'action hero notion,' results in bodybags. These 4E mechanics are, to an extent, gimmicks to get around the 'faulty AI' - the DM's limits.

The 'role' gimmicks are serving to reward team play. The system comes across as harder when the square pegs of typical table top play try to fit into the round holes 4E is now set up to assume.

I suspect once people start getting used to this, you're going to see more comments about the ease of success in 4E - but only once people realize how to play it, and that, I suspect, such play requires -not- being the hero, but just a member of an ensemble cast.

 

[Najo]

Here is what I can confirm from our experiences:

4e requires you to manage your healing surges, action points, daily powers and magic item uses much in the same way 3e had spell casters monitoring spell slots and charges. The intense part of 4e though is everyone has these resources and healing spell and second wind use up healing surges. So it can seem like a fight is going ok, and then all of the sudden the cleric is throwing spells at the wizard every turn because the wizard is in over their head and can't get to a safe position. Next thing you know the wizard is buring through his surges as the cleric heals him and it looks like he is going down and with him the control and area effect magic. Very intense.

The combat is much more about movement, position and group tactics more so than any previous edition. This is catching some groups off guard. Movement and position is key to the game which is how real combat tactics works. I really like this part of 4e. The encounters are awesome. Characters feel like action heroes instead of the 5' step and attack. Very intense too.

These two things together, mixed with interesting monster powers (like splitting oozes and shifty kobolds) makes the encounters very fluid and dangerous for groups without a battleplan.

I have seen groups go in with 5 people and no plan and get trashed by encounters lower than them. Then I have seen groups of 3 people at the same level or lower as that encounter go in with a plan and kick total butt. Good, sound tactics are key to the new D&D hands down. If you are having trouble with the encounter, look at how the group is working together to take out key targets, keep each other safe and use their resources wisely.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Anyone else notice this? A "standard" encounter in 4e, per the RAW, seems much more difficult than a "standard" encounter in 3e, per the RAW?

Huh. My experience so far has actually been that 4E has a lower mortality rate than 3E. I think it's the first campaign I've been in a long time where nobody's died (lots of "dropping below 0 hp," but no dying all the way to almost 10th level.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In general, especially at the lower levels, a level appropriate combat encounter generally consisted entirely of opponents that were very fragile. Even with Max hp + Con bonus, a good roll on a longsword would probably kill non front line characters. In general, you could eat 2 to 3 hits, and your down.

On top of that, healing at low levels was typically ineffective. Your 1st level cleric had maybe two or three Cure Light Wounds spells, and it was a crapshoot on getting back to full HP or regaining only two hp. And if you were dropped to -5, you would be lucky of the cleric could stand you up at all.

But, also keep in mind that the level appropriate monsters had it worse. An 18 Str human fighter with cleave would puree everything he could reach. If your Sorcerer or Wizard had Sleep, you would be able to murder your first level opponents quite easily.

The result? In a level appropriate fight at low level, you either won very easily, or you lost very easily. Combat could not be both threatening and engaging until about 3rd level.

Now consider 4th edition.

Your 4th edition character has as much HP as a 3rd or 4th level Fighter with a decent Con bonus at 1st level. You can heal yourself with 2nd Wind. If you have a Cleric or Warlord, you can get the benefit of a surge in combat when you really need it. If you have a Paladin, he can use his own surge to heal you. On top of that, healing is a flat number of at least 1/4 your hp, and maybe an extra die of a Cleric or Warlord triggers it for you. You are more durable, and healing is both plentiful and reliable.

Also consider though, that with the exception of Minions, your opponents also got more beef. A level 1 Kobold skirmisher has 27 Hp. Prior to 4th edition, the only time you saw a Kobold with that many hp is if your DM wanted a memorable villain, or laboriously statted out custom Kobolds with class levels. It also has a +6 attack bonus and does 1d8 damage. Not 1d4-1. 1d8 flat, and an additional 1d6 if he has flanking! And while minions are very weak, you are expected to face alot of them, and they hit just as often, and on average about as hard as the regulars!

Now consider that while your HP and healing are much greater, your damage output is roughly the same as your low level 3rd edition character. Also, spell casters are also not exactly as powerful as they used to be. Nearly every spell power requires an attack roll, and ongoing effects grant a 50 / 50 saving throw every round.

The result: Almost nothing will die as easily as it used to. You certainly wont, and the monsters are better able to bring the pain. Starting at AC 18 will not make you nigh indestructible to your opponents. The level appropriate monsters have a very good chance of hitting you.

Mortality over all is lower, because a 1st level PC is designed to be able to eat between 6 and 8 successful attacks after healing surges are taken into account. Previously, they could suffer maybe 2 at 1st level.

Combat is harder because even a Kobold minion can hit an AC 18 player about 40% of the time, whereas a Kobold would hit a pc maybe 20% of the time, and a party of 4 PC's is meant to be able to face an All Kobold Minion encounter with up to 16 of them.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[MortalPlague]

Yes, 4th Edition definitely seems deadly. I learned that after I threw together my adventure (see the thread); playtesting it with the KotS pregens, the first room wiped the party rather badly. Mind you, it was a bit of bad rolling for the PCs, but still... I underestimated my goblins.